G.R. Nos.

140407-08 January 15, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Facts:

P03 Renato F. Villamor, public officer, a member of the Philippine National Police and Jessie "Joy"
Maghilom, likewise a public officer, a Barangay councilman, shoot Jerry Velez and Jelord Velez. The
brothers were on their way home on board a motorcycle when they heard a speeding motorcycle fast
approaching from behind. The brothers ignored the other motorcycle, which caught up with them. As they
were about to cross the bridge leading to their home, gunshots rang out from behind them. They abruptly
turned the motorcycle around towards the direction of the gunfire. The light of their motorcycle's
headlamp fell on their attackers aboard the second motorcycle. The assailants fired at them a second
time. Jerry sustained gunshot wounds on the abdomen and left elbow, but survived. elord, however, was
not as fortunate, as he died on the spot during the first gun burst. By agreement of the parties, the two
cases were tried jointly. A charge of murder and frustrated murder were filed. Villamor pleaded “not guilty”
while Maghilom, remained at large. For his defense, accused-appellant Villamor claimed that he was not
at the scene of the crime at the time of its occurrence. That he was attending to his son who was in the
hospital. Villamor was then found guilty as charge.

Issues:

WON the defense of alibi can be invoke by the accused-appellant.

WON the testimony of a single witness is sufficient.

Ruling:

1. No. Such a defense is unavailing given the facts prevailing herein. The Court has consistently
looked upon the defense of alibi with suspicion and received it with caution not only because it is
inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can be easily fabricated. Unless supported by
clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot overcome the positive declarations of the victim
who, in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the accused-appellant as
one of the perpetrators of the crime. Contrary to accused-appellant's contention, he failed to
establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was
committed. His argument that he was attending to his son who was in the hospital is simply
unavailing.
2. Yes. It must be stressed in this regard that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to
establish the guilt of the accused for evidence is weighed not counted. Indeed, the testimony of a
single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to convict the appellant even in a murder
charge. The doctrinal rule is that findings of fact made by the trial court, which had the opportunity
to directly observe the witnesses and to determine the probative value of the other testimonies
are entitled to great weight and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess the
same, an opportunity not equally open to an appellate court.
G.R. No. L-30956 November 23, 1971

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Facts:

Vicente Bayona, with two companions, Daniel Brown Jr., and Rolando Cruz, were at the air-conditioned
room of Nad's restaurant, Libertad Street, Pasay City. While they were starting to drink pepsi-cola and
gin, accused-appellant Florencio Ordiales entered, asking Vicente Bayona, "Sino ba ang minumura mo?"
immediately firing at the latter a U.S. carbine, caliber .30, in rapid succession. The victim was unable to
answer because he was hit. Accused-appellant then put down his firearm to look at Bayona, after which
he left the restaurant and boarded a yellow jeep parked outside. Two other persons were in the said jeep
by the names of Bayani and Magsakay. Daniel Brown, Jr., ran away after the first shot, while the victim's
other companion, Rolando Cruz, was literally frozen with fear in his seat. Vicente Bayona died of multiple
gunshot wounds at 6:10 that same afternoon upon arrival at San Juan de Dios Hospital, Pasay City. The
assailant shot him at a distance of two and a half (2 ½ yards), more or less.The slaying is admitted by the
accused. The accused pleaded self- defense.

Issues:

WON the lower court erred convicting accused-appellant of the crime of murder qualified by treachery

WON the aggravating circumstances of abuse of public position and evident premeditation really attended
the commission of the crime

WON the plea of self-defense can be invoke by the accused-appellant

Ruling:

1. No. There is nothing on record to warrant a reversal of the court a quo's finding that treachery
attended the killing of the deceased. The sudden and unexpected shooting of the victim with a
carbine constituted treachery. Authorities are clear that even when an attack or aggression is
made face to face, treachery or alevosia is nevertheless present when the attack is sudden and
unexpected to the point of incapacitating the victim to repel or escape it.
2. No. It is not shown that accused-appellant took advantage of his position as confidential agent of
Mayor Claudio in shooting the victim, or that he used his "influence, prestige or ascendency" in
killing the deceased. Accused-appellant could have shot by Bayona without having finding
occupied the said position. Thus, in the absence proof that advantage was taken by accused-
appellant his being a confidential agent, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position
could not be properly appreciated against him. The aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation has not likewise been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The mere fact that
accused-appellant killed Bayona does not necessarily prove in itself that the former hatched a
plan to kill the latter.
3. No. There is no proof of unlawful aggression. The victim and his companions were all seated and
unarmed, and their movement was impeded by the table at which they sat. Their positions even
gave accused-appellant more advantage especially since he carried two firearms, a carbine and
a revolver.
G.R. No. 175926 July 6, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Facts:

The drug enforcement unit of the La Loma Police Station 1 received a request for assistance from the
sister of accused Milan regarding a drug deal that would allegedly take place in her house. The station
commander called SPO2 Wilfredo Pilar Red and instructed him to talk to Milan’s sister, who was in their
office. Thereafter, SPO2 Red formed a team composed of the officers who accompanied him during the
interrogation, with him as team leader. When the team reached the place, hey alighted from their vehicles
and surrounded Milan’s house. The door to Milan’s room was open, The door of the house was open,
enabling the police officers to see Carandang, Milan, and Chua inside. However, when the group
introduced themselves as police officers, Milan immediately shut the door. Gunshots rang, hitting PO2
Alonzo and SPO2 Red who dropped to the floor one after the other. Due to the suddenness of the attack,
PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red were not able to return fire and were instantly killed by the barrage of
gunshots. The RTC found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime murder and attempted
murder. The CA affirmed the decision.

Issue:

WON the court a quo erred in holding that there was conspiracy among the appellants in the case at bar.

Ruling:

Yes. In the case at bar, the conclusion that Milan and Chua conspired with Carandang was established
by their acts (1) before Carandang shot the victims (Milan’s closing the door when the police officers
introduced themselves, allowing Carandang to wait in ambush), and (2) after the shooting (Chua’s
directive to Milan to attack SPO1 Montecalvo and Milan’s following such instruction). Contrary to the
suppositions of appellants, these facts are not meant to prove that Chua is a principal by inducement or
that Milan’s act of attacking SPO1 Montecalvo was what made him a principal by direct participation.
Instead, these facts are convincing circumstantial evidence of the unity of purpose in the minds of the
three. As co-conspirators, all three are considered principals by direct participation.